From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc: KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/kvm: Implement MSR_HWCR support
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:09:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180622190912.GG1882@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180622185237.GC5549@flask>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 08:52:38PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> msr_info->host_initiated is always going to return true, so it would be
> better to put it outside of __set_mci_status.
>
> Maybe we could just write the whole logic inline, otherwise I'd call it
> something like mci_status_is_writeable.
>
> > static int set_msr_mce(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> > {
> > u64 mcg_cap = vcpu->arch.mcg_cap;
> > @@ -2176,9 +2200,13 @@ static int set_msr_mce(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> > if ((offset & 0x3) == 0 &&
> > data != 0 && (data | (1 << 10)) != ~(u64)0)
> > return -1;
> > - if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> > - (offset & 0x3) == 1 && data != 0)
> > - return -1;
> > +
> > + /* MCi_STATUS */
> > + if ((offset & 0x3) == 1) {
> > + if (!__set_mci_status(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return -1;
> > + }
>
> if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> (offset & 0x3) == 1 && data != 0) {
> struct msr_data tmp = {.index = MSR_K7_HWCR};
>
> if (!guest_cpuid_is_amd(vcpu) ||
> !kvm_x86_ops->get_msr(vcpu, &tmp) ||
> !(tmp.data & BIT_ULL(18)))
> return -1;
Don't you feel it is cleaner if all the MCi_STATUS checking is done in
a separate function? The indentation level and the bunch of checks in
set_msr_mce() make it hard to read while having a separate function
separates it and makes it easier to follow.
I mean, you're the maintainer but if I may give a suggestion, moving the
whole logic into a separate function would be more readable.
And then do:
if (!msr_info->host_initiated) {
if (check_mci_status(...))
return -1;
}
Something like that...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-22 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-22 9:50 [PATCH 0/3] x86/kvm: Enable MCE injection in the guest Borislav Petkov
2018-06-22 9:50 ` [PATCH 1/3] kvm/x86: Move MSR_K7_HWCR to svm.c Borislav Petkov
2018-06-22 9:51 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86/kvm: Implement MSR_HWCR support Borislav Petkov
2018-06-22 18:52 ` Radim Krčmář
2018-06-22 19:09 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-06-22 19:22 ` Radim Krčmář
2018-06-22 9:51 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86/kvm: Handle all MCA banks Borislav Petkov
2018-06-22 18:16 ` Radim Krčmář
2018-06-22 18:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-06-22 18:47 ` Radim Krčmář
2018-06-22 19:02 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180622190912.GG1882@zn.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).